Site Mobile Navigation

Gonzales Aide Suggested Replacements for Attorneys

WASHINGTON, April 13 — A Justice Department e-mail released today shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for seven United States attorneys nearly a year before those prosecutors were fired, in contrast to testimony last month in which the aide said that no successors were considered before the firings.

The e-mail written by D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month as the top aide to Mr. Gonzales, provides the first evidence that the Justice Department wanted to appoint its own candidates, despite the insistence of Justice Department officials in recent weeks that the eight prosecutors, with one exception, were removed in December 2006 for performance reasons, without regard to who might succeed them.

Two of the replacement candidates named in the e-mail were later named to fill vacancies created by United States Attorneys who stepped down, suggesting that Mr. Sampson had a roster of preferred candidates to place in United States Attorneys’ jobs. The e-mail seemed to provide new evidence that the Justice Department removed the prosecutors, at least in part, to make room for other candidates.

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail was sent by Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel, and William Kelley, another White House lawyer. In the message, Mr. Sampson proposed the dismissal of a total of seven United States Attorneys and named at least one replacement candidate for each prospective vacancy.

Because of deletions in the copy of the e-mail turned over to Congress, the names of only four of the United States Attorneys slated for removal and their possible successors are disclosed. The names of the replacement candidates, in most cases, are followed by a question mark, suggesting that Mr. Sampson might have been uncertain about them.

The United States Attorneys identified for removal are four who were ultimately dismissed: Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, Carol C. Lam in San Diego and H. E. Cummins III in Arkansas. Justice Department officials have acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was an able prosecutor who was removed solely to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser. Mr. Griffin was appointed to the job on a temporary basis.

“Please treat this as confidential,” Mr. Sampson wrote, in a numbered summary of the seven prosecutors to be fired along with their possible replacements. The copy of the e-mail turned over to Congress was edited so that the identities of three of the prosecutors and their potential successors cannot be determined.

“If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and possible replacement,” Mr. Sampson’s e-mail said.

But Mr. Sampson testified under oath on March 29 at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no candidates in mind to replace any of the fired prosecutors.

At one point in the hearing, Charles E. Schumer, a Democratic Senator from New York, asked Mr. Sampson, “Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. Attorneys before they were asked to resign on December 7th, 2006.”

Mr. Sampson, who was testifying under oath, replied, “I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

The Justice Department said that the e-mail did not contradict Mr. Sampson’s sworn testimony. "We have consistently stated that, with the exception of Griffin, individuals were not pre-selected for any of the eight U.S. Attorney positions prior to asking the U. S. Attorneys to resign,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman. “The list made public today had previously been shared with privately with Congress, and it in no way contradicts the Department prior statement. The list drafted 10 months before the December resignations reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts not pre-selected candidates by the Administration.”

Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Bradford Berenson, also denied that the email contradicted Mr. Sampson’s testimony. "Kyle’s testimony regarding the consideration of replacements was entirely accurate. In December 2006, when the seven U.S. Attorneys were asked to step down, no specific candidate had been selected to replace any of them, and Kyle had none in mind. Some names had been tentatively suggested for discussion much earlier in the process, but by the time the decision to ask for the resignations was made none had been chosen to serve as a replacement.”

The documents turned over today brought the total number of e-mails and other records produced by the Justice Department to more than 6,000 pages. Justice Department officials said some documents were only recently discovered, including documents from officials who were not previously required to turn over their electronic files.

In some cases, the documents represented duplicate versions of documents already provided to the committees. Some of the document had been previously withheld by the Justice Department, but were available for review by congressional investigators.

The e-mail was among more than 2,000 pages of documents released today by the Justice Department as part of a continuing stream of e-mails and other internal records produced by the agency in the last month in response to requests by the House and Senate judiciary committees.

Justice Department officials said some of the documents were only recently discovered, including some from officials who were not previously required to turn over their electronic correspondence and others that were duplicated versions of documents already provided to the committees.

The documents were turned over to lawmakers in advance of Tuesday’s scheduled testimony by Mr. Gonzales, an appearance that Republicans and Democratic lawmakers have said will be critical to his effort to keep his job. The disclosure that his chief aide had considered replacement candidates is certain to be a focus of the hearing.

It is not clear why the documents were not previously turned over to the congressional investigating committees. The Justice Department has produced documents at least four times in recent weeks, at times indicating that the latest documents represent the last known material relevant to he inquiry.

Mr. Sampson proposed that Ms. Chiara’s replacement would be Rachel L. Brand, the 33-year-old head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, a graduate of Harvard Law School who has little litigation experience. In many ways she is typical of the young lawyers with conservative political pedigrees who have flourished in the Bush administration.

Ms. Brand was active in the Federalist Society, the association of lawyers that serves as kind of a talent pool and credential for young conservatives who are interested in appointments to legal slots in the Republican administration.

At her confirmation hearings in May 2005, Ms. Brand told the Judiciary committee that, despite a brief stint as an associate at a Washington law firm, she had never tried a case before a jury. In fact, she said she had never been in court or, as a lawyer, been involved in a criminal matter.

To replace Carol C. Lam, the United States Attorney in San Diego, Mr. Sampson proposed either Deb Rhodes or Jeff Taylor. Ms. Rhodes, a long-time prosecutor in San Diego, was confirmed in October 2006 as the United States Attorney in Mobile, Alabama. Mr. Taylor was appointed by Mr. Gonzales in September 2006 as a temporary United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Taylor served from 2002 to 2006 as a counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft and later to Mr. Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the department’s law enforcement components.

To replace Kevin Ryan, who was removed as the United States Attorney in San Francisco, Mr. Sampson proposed Daniel Levin, a former counselor to Mr. Ashcroft. He was also acting assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, a job in which he signed a December 2004 memorandum withdrawing a 2002 document giving a controversial definition of torture.